Talk:Diabetes/Archive 6

Response for RfC

I do not see any compelling evidence for chromium/GTF's role in diabetes. I do not even see a need to include one sentence about it and do not think that it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. If evidence were provided, then I would support re-examining. InvictaHOG 12:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The ISI database contains 15 refereed papers to the query "glucose tolerance factor" AND chromium AND diabetes (sample returns Wang et al 2005 BIOCHEMISTRY 44:8167-8175; Cefalu et al 2004 DIABETES CARE 27:2741-2751; Vincent 2000 NUTRITION REVIEWS 58:67-72) that seem to support the verification aspect of the topic (I've made no evaluation of the specific claims). I am in agreement with Alteripse in the section above, that this merits inclusion in the article, but not in the lead section. Pete.Hurd 22:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Pete.Hurd --Jon Cates 01:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

GT at it again

Sorry JFW and others, but I suspect all your lengthy discussions above have been a waste of time, as Rok bura, john murphy, and xemijura are all GT sockpuppets. Probably the "hundreds of sleeper accounts" he's been boasting about. [1] He's got a vendetta against anyone who was involved in Parkinsons disease so treat all new accounts speaking "with authority" about outlandish biochemical theories with extreme skepticism. --PaulWicks 12:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Tojo has now mobilised these users in his revert wars, and they have been blocked indefinitely. Discussion closed. JFW | T@lk 21:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Puzzling edit

The comment about user:General Tojo having been the puppet master behind John Murphy, Rok bura, etc in the discussion above is odd. First attempting to comment on it in the same section heading, fails to show that the edit text exists in that seciton. Second, consulting the history of the User:General Tojo history indicates that the user has been banned from WP by the Arbitration Committee and further reference to the link to lists of sock puppets which the Arb Comm, apparently, has decided General Tojo has maimtained. Among them is Paul Wicks whose user page discusses being harassed by General Tojo or his sock puppets. And whose talk page includes a notice that this user is asock puppet for General Tojo. So, do we have an actual helpful comment from a medical researcher (ie, Paul Wicks) or has General Tojo or some sock puppet outed himself? Or something else? I think my migraines are coming back. ww 20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And now that edit has been alakazam! poof! disappeared. Oh my head... ww 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Paul Wick's comments. DR Congo (talk • contribs) removed it and I suspect him to be a General Tojo sockpuppet too judging from his lack of edits. I can vouch for Paul Wicks and any General Tojo tags on his user/talk pages claiming that he is a sockpuppet is vandalism by General Tojo. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  10:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

WW, it's simple. John Murphy and Rok bura looked innocent. But then they joined a pattern of reverts on the Parkinson's articles that identified them as Tojo sockpuppets. Unfortunately indefinitely banned users can still use sockpuppets. Anycase, I suspected John Murphy was a Tojo sockpuppet the moment he started boasting about his biochemistry knowledge. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

reversion of vegan diet story pointer.link

The recent edit by LogicUser was reverted for several reasons. Inappropriate bolding, poor source (simplistic popular reporting of study, poorly done), lack of medically informed analysis, rush to judgement of supposed conclusions in a contentious field (vegetarian vs non-vegetarian diets). The data reported is also consistent with the rather better supported and already present in this article, observation that some Type 2 patients improve considerably when they lose weight and get more exercise. And there was no notice taken (in the CNN piece) nor in the reverted link, that Type 2 patients present quite varied responses to any therapy.

WP should wait for better sourcing of this study before including it here. I note that LogicUser has included the same pointer in another article. I haven't examined that one, but suspect it might be inappropriate as well. ww 18:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro length

Someone came along and slapped {{intro length}} on the article. I can't stand it when people do this to heavily browsed articles - ram a box on top and distract the casual reader with instructions to editors.

I do agree, however, that the intro is presently too long. I previously summarised the characteristics of the three main diabeteses in one paragraph. Then it started growing again, mainly after the John Murphy / Rok Bura fracas.

I propose we change the intro back to the one on 7 July 2006 (after my large edit). Anyone disagree? JFW | T@lk 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I did so. (A small discussion then ensued on User talk:Jfdwolff and my talk page). The reason why I put the tag on the main article is because that's where they're (AFAIK) supposed to go. Tags put the article into the relevant category (in this case, Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup) and let people browsing know that the article needs some work. Per the discussion referenced above, I will not revert. Nor will I add more to this discussion unless explicitly asked since I really don't want to get involved in a debate that's entirely unimportant to me... I'm just defending my actions, since I seem to have offended somebody deeply by actions that I still believe were entirely appropriate. --Storkk 00:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Offended deeply? Sorry, that's just my normal hyperbole resulting from a longstanding frustration about boxes growing on articles. I do agree with your point that the intro needs cleanup and will have another try to deal with this issue myself. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how I "slapped" the {{intro length}} template on in the first place, and I think it's now vastly better; taking into account the fact that the template should really not be on the talk page of the article, I've removed it from here. Cheers. --Storkk 01:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ASCOT study

What is the reference for the new results from the ASCOT study that shows that perindopril + amlodipine have a reduced incidence of diabetes compared to BDZ + atenolol? JFW | T@lk 20:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo: ramipril too! NEJM. JFW | T@lk 08:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I was wrong there. It was rosiglitazone; ramipril was actually rubbish (despite earlier reports that ACEis improved diabetes risk). JFW | T@lk 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

yup - all from the recent DREAM study. i wonder if the ASCOT results were a reflection of the diabetogenicity of thiazides rather than the anti-diabetic effects of an ACE.

Talk Archive

Would anybody object to my archiving some of this to a separate subpage?--Coro 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I set up Archive1 in chronological order as a place for discussions that ended prior to 2005. The exception was for those items that concerned the structure of the Diabetes Articles themselves, since it is a discussion that keeps cropping up repeatedly under a variety of titles and locations. I have gotten a question on the advisability of doing that, and can see where it is coming from.

Chronological is the recommended archival standard, and for the most part I agree with it, and have tried to do so with Archive1. Where I run into issues with the normal standard is when it involves a recurring issue such as the structure of this article, where earlier entries may be relevant to later entries, and in any event relate to the overall history of a common effort.

Right now, I got two possibilities, that I can think of, on where to go with it.

1. Continue as I've done thus far, or
2. Merge the contents chronologically of /Article Structure into /Archive1, while maintaining a separate copy of /Article Structure.

My only concern is that of being able to view a relatively sequential record of the recurring discussion regarding the structure of the Diabetes and related topics without having to search all over the place. Precisely because it keeps coming up.

Any thoughts? Because I'm currently inclined to hold off doing anything else until I hear more.--Coro 18:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Series Box

Hi, I seem to be free again for awhile, and took a more thorough look at the talk page and found what looked like a request. I have inserted the first draft onto this page for the moment, and would like comments either here or on Template talk:Diabetes before proceeding further. Here until life barges on me again... --Coro 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked the layout and added a few extra entries. Main problem on actually inserting into relevant articles was its lying side-by-side with any other template boxes that might be on the page (i.e. the template:infobox disease) or indeed images. Solution seems to be to place it not at top of an article but just before the first section header. This then leaves the introduction alone, and the navigation box appears level with the list of contents. Where required, I also needed to use the break tab to force completion of the introductory block - using <br clear="left"> - hardly neat markup. Can anyone tweak this navigation box's own markup to help (just adding break clear tags also shifted the article's text to the end of the template:Diabetes) ? David Ruben ^Talk 02:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Chinese vs. Indian Ants

We seem to have two different claims recently, both un-cited:

• The ancient Chinese tested for diabetes by observing whether ants were attracted to a person's urine, and called the ailment "sweet urine disease" (糖尿病);

• The ancient Indians tested for diabetes by observing whether ants were attracted to a person's urine, and called the ailment "sweet urine disease" (Madhumeha);

Which is true? If no one can provide a citation soon, I will remove the claim from the article (which would be a shame, is it is an enlightening bit of trivia). Anarchist42 18:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a vivid bit of apocrypha found since the mid-20th century in American sources, but never with a specific Indian or Chinese source. I'll bet you could find a version in which it was ascribed to American Indian lore if you look hard enough. I would vote for deletion or at least stop describing it as genuine ancient medical knowledge. alteripse 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

History paragraph

Anarchist42 (talk · contribs) removed the well-sourced and highly informative paragraph on the scientific developments in diabetes research with the edit summary: removed editorial. In what sense is that an "editorial"? If the language is a bit too upbeat, then please edit for style. But I protest removing the whole paragraph on this basis. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• We meet again Jfdwolff. Here's what I removed:

Dear Montclair Times,

- The Center for Social Justice at Montclair high school is hosting a program with the purpose of raising awareness and informing the public about the growing diabetes epidemic. In this day and age diabetes is a serious threat, with all of our fast food, sugary drinks, and fattening candy bars diabetes is becoming more and more common. Though there is no cure for diabetes type 1 or type 2 there has been significant research in the search for a cure. By raising funds and awareness we can take us one step closer to curing this global pandemic.

Which seems to be inappropriate for an wikipedia article, I'm sure you'll agree. Anarchist42 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Drug company cynicism

Ww (talk · contribs) added this:

Many diabetics remain frustrated as the best treatments currently available fall short of cure and, because of the wide variety in the course of diabetes (especially Type 2), the treatments avaialble seem to be somewhat hit or miss. In addition, the drug companies seem satisfied with symptomatic treatments and testing, both of which must be continued for life.

Apart from being unsourced and POV, I'm eager to hear which cures for diabetes have been suppressed by the drug industry. If there is a source for the view that treatment is "hit and miss", we can reinsert the first sentence. JFW | T@lk 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is the same evil executives who are suppressing the car that runs on water. alteripse 10:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

JFW & A, Sorry guys, I wasn't the original sinner. Consult the history. I found something even more outrageous, toned it down, cleaned it up, and left it in. Didn't want to delete it until the poster commented on it. On the theory that perhaps there was something there I didn't see. However, I see that others failed to see anything there, too, so I suppose my eyesight was in this instance not as wobbly as it often is. Still don't see what the poster was trying to get at, if there was anything that should have stayed in the article at all.

A, I heard it was a 100 MPG carburettor that the car companies or the oil companies or someone bought up the patent for. Fits with the quite real assistance they supplied toward the death of the streetcar systems that were once common on the ground in the US. I've been told, by an old-timer who was in a position to know (but who may have been pulling legs) that one could get on a streetcar in NYC and, after much changing and all, get off Down East (in Portland?) using streetcars all the way. 'Evil executives' are a kind of jungian archetype aren't they? And we have so many recent examples, just in the US, to reinforce the images in the unconscious.

But, on another subject altogether, I've been trying for some time to find someone who actually knows the stuff to go over diabetic ketoacidosis. I thought I'd finally found the causational mechanism (non-diabetics don't go into DKA, but do go ketotic -- normally. So why do diabetics sometimes (often) do so?), but have since been told I'd gotten it wrong. I really don't see that glucagon/insulin ratios are a key, as the article now claims, but... See pleas/plaints in talk. ww 17:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The DKA article surely needs work. It is a complex pathobiochemical state and shows that carbohydrate & lipid metabolism are tightly interwoven on a regulatory level. I have not recently read any good review articles (perhaps Alteripse is the man here), but I've had a good talk at the Royal College of Physicians a few months ago which basically emphasised that ketone measurement (especially β-hydroxybutyrate) may be the most accurate way of establishing whether the patient is still ketotic (urine dipstix only measure acetoacetate). JFW | T@lk 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Farting?

The word 'farting' is used in the first paragraph. I'm not a doctor, but it doesn't seem to be used in the correct context. Could someone please clarify.

Some short-lived (9 minutes) vandalism. It's been corrected.–RHolton≡– 02:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical material

I've found a nice paper that details the history of diabetes in clinical research: Am J Physiol. I have updated the Dobson reference, but there are several other nuggets of gold in there. JFW | T@lk 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

MODY?

Shouldn't there be some mention of MODY in the article somewhere?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.90.185 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 November 2006

Yes, there should as a varient of type 2. Anyone already know much about this ? David Ruben ^Talk 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[2] explains it quite well. SenorKristobbal 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Role of Nervous System, Reversability?

I've added one sentence to the section on Type 1 Diabetes referencing the recent paper published in the journal Cell, which might change just about everything. Diabetics have seen promised cures disappear before, and given the number of us with this condition I didn't want to make a big deal about and get people's hopes up. Having said that, the findings of this study look like very, very good science. I leave it to others to try and strike the right balance, but this looks about right to me.

If someone can clean up my references (citations), I'd appreciate it as they look messy right now, and I can't find a page telling me how to do it properly.JakartaDean 04:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice that iansmcl has reversed my changes, without comment here. Ian, what's up? I feel it's unneccerassily rude to cancel others' edits without comment. Why? i stand by what I put in, and feel it's appropriate that I reinsert in 48 hours, unless you present contrary evidence.JakartaDean 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I find myself with iansmcl in this case. JD, your comment above, that "...this might just change everything..." pretty much covers it. This is a article of first resort for the Average Reader, and as such shouldn't have much (ideally none) of potential might be sort of stuff. I was myself struck by the Cell report and the possibility of more links to other body systems. Sounds quite plausible to me, actually, but that's not sufficient for WP, expecially in an article like this. Perhaps this should go in one of hte other more specific DM articles under a heading such as interesting research with considerable promise, or some such. Lizard spit wasn't even mentioned here for quite a long time and I think is gone again, and that's been an accepted therapy for a while now. And has a great story behind it. Wrong place I think, at least now. When we know more about what it means, maybe... ww 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments Ww. I understand you POV, and appreciate it, and I hope my concern came across also. I understand the need for balance, but I (perhaps hopefully, but I don't think so) find this research breathtaking. I think I wrongly blamed Ian before I fully checked the 'audit trail' of revisions. As I hope was clear, I think this is wonderful, Nobel prize worty resarch, but I understand the need to keep folks who haven't studied it on an even keel. Your improvements are fine with me. Merry Christmas, Seasons Greetings, ...JakartaDean 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Toe socks

The use of toe socks to prevent gangrene would belong to the gangrene article. However, before it is included there, a serious search for sources would be necessary to give neutral (non-advertizing) sources for the utility of toe socks for gangrene prevention.  Andreas  ^(T) 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)